ABC building 'targeted' for advertising stunt

Mr Bock said the ABC building would have been targeted for the "novelty factor of being cheeky".

However he believed the stunt by Woolworths had failed.

"Obviously they were hoping for the PR machine to roll because ... commercial advertising on the ABC would have been the headline if they had have got it," Mr Bock said.

"I think it failed because they purely didn’t get the machine rolling and the PR wasn't there.

"They've targeted the ABC on the novelty factor of being cheeky and hoping for that headline of 'commercial advertising of the ABC'."

Federal act could see advertisers in strife

Law Society of South Australia president Morry Bailes said the Australian Competition and Consumer Act could protect building owners from being the victim of wall projection advertising.

"It's not a trespass because no-one has actually gone on to the property. So it's crafty in that respect," Mr Bailes said.

"As to some sort of graffiti or vandalism charge well they are not physically changing the building, it's a temporary image so that sort of thing wouldn't get up."

However, Mr Bailes said the second schedule of the federal act, which states an individual or business who makes a false or misleading representation of sponsorship approval or affiliation, could help prevent the practice.

"So the argument here might be that Woolworths was impliedly suggesting they had ABC sponsorship or affiliation or support of the product, or good or a service they are trying to promote. That's what could get them into trouble," Mr Bailes said.

"Under the act you don't have to show there's an actual loss associated with it, it's just the act itself, and any party can complain.

"There have been examples where competitors will be the one to bring the legal action, so Coles for example might want to bring the legal action or it can be actioned by the ACCC or the ABC."

Mr Bailes said through the act civil penalty points are awarded and it costs the offending company money, but not directly to the benefit of the complainant.

No rights under property laws

Tindall Gask and Bentley consultant Giles Kahl said while a property owners may not approve of the use of their buildings, property laws did not offer a lot of protection.

"From a property law perspective I can't find any case in which a court has had to consider the rights of the property owner," Mr Kahl said.

"There can be a trespass committed without there having been any damage done. Trespass, however, traditionally only exists where there is a physical intrusion onto the owner/occupier's land.

"An argument that this should be extended to intrusion by light is unlikely to be accepted by a court, as this would open up a Pandora's box of litigation, much of which would no doubt concern trivial and/or unintentional acts.

"The other branch of property law which requires consideration is the tort of nuisance, however that only applies where there is "a substantial and unreasonable interference" with the owner/occupier’s enjoyment of their land.

"It is hard to see how this advertising, if only projected onto the building for a brief period, would be regarded as a substantial interference with the owner/occupier's enjoyment.

"Clearly if the owner/occupier had consented, they could not then complain provided that what is done is within the consent.

"Even without consent, however, it appears that property law does not recognise a right of owner/occupiers to prevent wall projection advertising, at least if only for a brief period."